If it appears you are mentally ill at any stage of the discipline process, you will be examined by mental health staff.
(a) Competency to Participate in Disciplinary Proceedings. If evidence indicates that you cannot understand the nature of the disciplinary proceedings, or cannot help in your own defense, disciplinary proceedings may be postponed until you are competent to participate. The Unit Disciplinary Committee or Discipline Hearing Officer will make this decision based on evidence, including evidence presented by mental health staff.
(b) Responsibility for Conduct. You will not be disciplined for conduct committed when, as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, you were unable to appreciate the nature and quality, or wrongfulness of the act. The UDC or DHO will make this decision based on evidence, including evidence presented by mental health staff.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case:
Pinson v. Berkebile, 576 F. App'x 710 (10th Cir. 2014).
Pinson v. Berkebile, 576 F. App'x 710 (10th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 . On this record — even excluding the litigation documents that the district court bolstered its decision with— we conclude that the hearing officer complied with 28 C.”
Pinson v. Berkebile, 601 F. App'x 611 (10th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 . In an interim order dated March 18, 2013, the judge dismissed 14 of the 37 disciplinary grievances because they had been brought in other cases filed in Alabama and Colorado courts.”
Pinson v. Berkebile, 594 F. App'x 948 (10th Cir. 2014).
“Specifically, he claimed that in each disciplinary proceeding he was denied (1) a mental evaluation pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 ; (2) a staff representative to assist him due to his mental illness; (3) a hearing; and (4) an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary…”
Smadi v. True (S.D. Ill. 2021).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R § 541.6. At the disciplinary hearing, the DHO considers evidence of the inmate’s mental competence at the time of the violation and at the time of the hearing.”
Davis v. Rardin (D. Minnesota 2024).
· cites it 3× “Davis also asserted that he did not understand or comprehend “anything” and was “incompetent,” citing to 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 (which concerns disciplinary proceedings for mentally incompetent prisoners).”
Ellis v. Von Blanckensee (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 2× “12 Petitioner further alleges that he was denied a psychological evaluation pursuant to 13 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 in each of the disciplinary proceedings that he challenges.”
John Powers v. Warden Allenwood USP (3rd Cir. 2022).
“asks whether a person was so lacking in volition due to a mental defect or illness that he could not have controlled his actions.” Clark v. 4 The Bureau of Prisons similarly proscribes the punishment of prisoners, who “as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, .”
Smadi v. True (S.D. Ill. 2020).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 (b). Moreover, “The UDC or DHO will make this decision based on evidence, including evidence presented by mental health staff.”
McMurrer v. Sproul (S.D. Ill. 2022).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 (a). BOP Program Statement 5310.”
Powers v. Beasley (M.D. Penn. 2020).
“48 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 . This process was adhered to in Petitioner’s case.”
Allah a/k/a Kerr, Kevin v. Garland (M.D. Penn. 2021).
“) That same day, Petitioner was interviewed by a psychologist pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.6 and Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Program Statement 5270.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.6(a) — 1 case
Smadi v. True (S.D. Ill. 2021).
“See 28 C.F.R § 541.6. At the disciplinary hearing, the DHO considers evidence of the inmate’s mental competence at the time of the violation and at the time of the hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.